Board declines reopening of AI pilot vote; debate centers on cost, cameras and privacy

The New Hanover County Schools Board of Education on Tuesday debated whether to reopen last week’s vote rejecting participation in a state-funded artificial-intelligence pilot, but members voted not to add that discussion back to the agenda.

The proposal at the center of the debate was a $3,200,000 grant the district had been offered to pilot an AI-enabled monitoring system. Board member Pat Bradford moved to add discussion of “new information” about the pilot to the meeting agenda; that move sparked a lengthy exchange about procedure, potential local costs and student privacy. "Any new policy or budgetary items presented as an addendum to the published agenda are not subject to action at the same meeting," Board member Dr. Tim Merrick said while quoting Policy 23-30.

Why it matters: Board members said the decision could affect where the district seeks roughly $1 million in local funding and whether schools adopt new camera or monitoring systems. Supporters of revisiting the pilot said material surfaced since the vote merited a public, full-board debate; opponents said the original vote reflected deliberation and persistent concerns about vendor choice and legal safeguards.

Proponents emphasized new budget details and district priorities. Board member Josie Barnhart told the board the district is now budgeting requests to the county that include $275,000 for monitoring, $685,000 to upgrade camera systems and an additional ask to acquire Raptor software — "Those 3 amounts add up to more than a million dollars that we are turning around asking the county for," Barnhart said. Pat Bradford added: "The $3,000,000 was offered to us as a grant pilot program to enhance 1 aspect of our security. It is not available for anything else. Nada. We will have to go next week and ask the county to give us about a million dollars to do some of the stuff that this program would have funded."

Opponents continued to question the vendor and called for caution. Several members who voted against participation last week reiterated their concerns about the company under consideration and about guardrails in state law for intrusive monitoring features. "The conversations I had with multiple individuals, alongside my own personal research, raised more questions than answers," Dr. Merrick said, summarizing his decision to vote no.

Legal and process guidance featured in the discussion. The board’s legal advisor told members that because the board was meeting in a separate session from the prior vote, a renewed motion would be treated as a new motion and could be made by any member. "A motion to reconsider has to be in the same session," the attorney said. The procedural opinion allowed members to raise the matter, but several members cited Policy 23-30 as a reason to move the item only for information and not for final action at this meeting.

Outcome and immediate next steps: A motion to place the AI pilot discussion on the agenda was not approved at the meeting. The regular agenda was then approved by the board. Board members said they will continue to compile information — including additional vendor documents, security officer input and clarifications about allowable uses of any grant funds — before making any further decisions.

Votes at a glance

- Motion to add AI pilot discussion to the agenda: failed (motion not approved during the meeting). - Approval of the regular meeting agenda: passed 5–2. - Consensus/consent items: passed 7–0 earlier in the meeting.

Speakers

- Pat Bradford — Board member (mover to add AI discussion to agenda). - Josie Barnhart — Board member (spoke in favor of reconsideration). - Dr. Tim Merrick — Board member (quoted Policy 23-30; argued against acting tonight). - David Perry — Board member (spoke on legal limits for use of state grant funds). - Board attorney — Board legal counsel (explained reconsideration vs. renewed motion). - Chuck Silverstein — Safety and security officer (referenced; requested to present but did not speak at this meeting).

Clarifying details

- State grant offered: $3,200,000 (described in board remarks). - Local budget requests mentioned by board members: $275,000 (monitoring), $685,000 (camera upgrades), plus additional funding asked to purchase Raptor; Barnhart said these items together exceed $1,000,000. - Policy cited by board members: Policy 23-30 (quoted by Dr. Merrick). - Legal advice: Board attorney advised that a renewed motion outside the prior meeting’s session can be introduced by any member; a true motion to reconsider must occur in the same session as the original vote.

Community relevance

- Geography: New Hanover County (districtwide impact). - Impact groups: students, teachers, school security staff, taxpayers.

Provenance

- topicintro: {"block_id":"67.835","local_start":0,"local_end":85,"evidence_excerpt":"I would like to add to the agenda a discussion of the new information that we have discovered since last meeting on the AI pilot."} - topfinish: {"block_id":"1540.09","local_start":0,"local_end":80,"evidence_excerpt":"That does not pass. I will entertain a motion to approve the agenda."}